The calorie burn is higher because you normally move your arms as well as your legs, generating more calories burned for the same effort. Keep in mind that the machine is only going to give you an estimate.

There are claims that the dual action exercise of an elliptical trainer can actually be more efficient in burning calories. The logic is that by exercising more muscle groups simultaneously, a more intense workout can be achieved in less time. It is also suggested that the perceived rate of exertion is lower. However, other studies have shown that the rate in which calories are burned on an elliptical trainer is similar to that on a treadmill.[4] Thomas Altena, a professor of nutritional and exercise physiologist of the University of Missouri-Columbia measured oxygen retention, lactic acid build-up, heart rate, and perceived rate of exertion to compare treadmills and elliptical trainers.[5] According to Altena, the "physiological responses associated with elliptical exercise were nearly identical to treadmill exercise".[5]

Stop pedaling on a bike and the pedals stop, stop moving your legs on an elliptical and they keep going.

So, essentially, they will always be 'easier'.

I think this is true; there's an inertial force you'd need to subtract to get the total work done. Not sure if that's taken into account when counting the calorie estimate but one would hope it is.

Also, I use my arms when running. I'm pretty sure my back gets a bit of a workout because when I had a back spasm last year it was during a run (ouch). I'm sure whatever back and arm workout I get from that is extremely small but it's still something.

Are we thinking that there is any close correlation between actual energy expenditure and the number shown on the digital read-out of cardio machines? It's a very crude correlation at best. The machine doesn't know how big you are, how conditioned you are, what the environmental temperature is, or any of a number of other factors that affect energy use. It only "knows" how many times you rotate the shaft on the machine in a given period of time.

I also think that the calorie is no better as a unit of energy expenditure than it is as a unit of measurement of the energy contents of food.

That is why you hear fat people proudly talking about how they burned 1000 during their workout. It ain't happening.

Ellipticals appear to give and even higher overestimation than treadmills and bikes.

Some of this probably has to do incorrect calculations in the design of the formula place in the machine to measure calorie expenditure.

I also suspect that the manufacturers themselves purposely exaggerate to sell them.

It similar to a dress manufacturer labeling a womans size 6 as a size 4. Women were buying the dress brand because they could tout they were were a size 4. The manufacturer downsized all the dresses sizes like that.

Same thing with food now. They keep the price the same but make the container smaller.

Jungledoc wrote:Are we thinking that there is any close correlation between actual energy expenditure and the number shown on the digital read-out of cardio machines? It's a very crude correlation at best. The machine doesn't know how big you are, how conditioned you are, what the environmental temperature is, or any of a number of other factors that affect energy use. It only "knows" how many times you rotate the shaft on the machine in a given period of time.

I also think that the calorie is no better as a unit of energy expenditure than it is as a unit of measurement of the energy contents of food.

Jungledoc wrote:Are we thinking that there is any close correlation between actual energy expenditure and the number shown on the digital read-out of cardio machines? It's a very crude correlation at best. The machine doesn't know how big you are, how conditioned you are, what the environmental temperature is, or any of a number of other factors that affect energy use. It only "knows" how many times you rotate the shaft on the machine in a given period of time.

I also think that the calorie is no better as a unit of energy expenditure than it is as a unit of measurement of the energy contents of food.

Exactly. Great post.

Kenny Croxdale

Thanks, Kenny!

Where have you been? You haven't posted for weeks. Did you notice that we now have ranks? Yours is unique, at my urging, because your contribution to the forum is so far out of proportion to the number of posts you put up. So congratulations on being our one and only Powerlifting Ninja!

Jungledoc wrote:Are we thinking that there is any close correlation between actual energy expenditure and the number shown on the digital read-out of cardio machines? It's a very crude correlation at best. The machine doesn't know how big you are, how conditioned you are, what the environmental temperature is, or any of a number of other factors that affect energy use. It only "knows" how many times you rotate the shaft on the machine in a given period of time.

I also think that the calorie is no better as a unit of energy expenditure than it is as a unit of measurement of the energy contents of food.

Exactly. Great post.

Kenny Croxdale

Thanks, Kenny!

Where have you been? You haven't posted for weeks. Did you notice that we now have ranks? Yours is unique, at my urging, because your contribution to the forum is so far out of proportion to the number of posts you put up. So congratulations on being our one and only Powerlifting Ninja!